Ok since men can't get pregnant but does however provide sperm, material and monetary obligations.?

True.

the man works for his money, he pays and that is why when he has the duties, then he must have priviledges with it too, because it can not be that he always must and never has a benefit.

only 3% of the ladies pay alimony to the Father for the child they made to him. i think that number should be increased to 50%.

Both men and women provide material and monetary goods for a child.

I do not approve of third-trimester abortions for any reason other than to save the mother from potentially life-threatening pregnancy complications. As for earlier abortions, any male-female pair that is having sex should have a conversation about birth control and what to do if the woman becomes pregnant BEFORE they ever do any sexual activity that could cause pregnancy. If they have the conversation after the woman is already pregnant, they will each have too much at stake and not be able to come to a rational conclusion.

If they don't have this conversation before the pregnancy occurs, then I believe that the woman should have the final say on whether to keep or abort. However, I would support the option for men to financially abort in cases of incest, abuse of the man by the woman, paternity fraud, or reproductive coercion (rape or deliberately tricking/coercing/threatening the man into getting her pregnant). If none of those things are happening, and the woman wants to keep the baby, while the man doesn't, they should put the baby up for adoption.

No. Women are also providing material and monetary obligations, and the custodial parent ALWAYS bears a greater burden than the non-custodial parent (IE, if the parents aren't together, the one paying child support has a lesser burden than the one actually providing food and shelter and caring for the child -child care often costs more than the average mortgage).

Besides -ADOPTION is an alternative to parenting. ABORTION is an alternative to pregnancy. Don't want to be a parent? Great, you can put the kid up for adoption or simply terminate your parental rights & obligations http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/a/te... . However, if you don't want to be pregnant -if you don't want to risk your health & life, risk losing your job, risk social scorn and stigma, permanently alter your life & body, and go through nearly a year of pain, nausea and discomfort culminating in hours if not days of excruciating pain, there's only one alternative. Not to mention the fact that pregnancy & birth are hideously expensive (at least in USA -where, ironically, the maternal mortality rate is stupid-high compared to other developed countries, likely BECAUSE the health-care system is so expensive; in Canada, for instance, prenatal care & birth are both covered, and maternal health is much better, much lower rates of maternal & infant mortality. Also much lower rates of abortion...). Only the pregnant person can decide whether or not to go through that, and only the pregnant person can decide whether or not to abort.

No, men do not have the final say in whether the pregnancy is continued or not. The pregnancy takes place in another persons body and you do not have the right to choose what another person does with their body.

If a man does not want to have a child, he should ensure that he is using a reliable form of birth control, especially if he is in the habit of having sexual intercourse with women he either doesn't trust to use it or doesn't know if they are using it.

If his partner wishes to continue the pregnancy against his wishes, then he does have the choice to pay a Lawyer to state in a legal document that the couple had no intentions to have a child together, which is then presented to the Child Support Agency. How you could ever prove that though, is anyone's guess.

Sorry, if one can't get pregnant, one cannot choose whether or not to continue or discontinue the pregnancy.

BTW, it's 2014. Women can provide for themselves just fine w/o the aid of a man. I'm sure they are paying their own 'monetary & material obligations' too.

"material and monetary obligations"

Not necessarily/always/both parents do.

Carrying a foetus in your body -that makes you larger, hormonal, moody, and might even put you at risk of death- for 9 months approx. trumps everything else, so no. Final say rests with the one that's pregnant.

Her body her choice in the same way his wallet should be his choice. Fine by me if she aborts because she doesn't want the kid but he does, she has a right to her body. Also fine by me if he chooses to financially abort the kid that the woman chose to keep, he has a right to his body and wallet.

Nevertheless the human females will only call it his kid when it is time to pay the bills lol. At the abortion table it never was his kid

I fully understand the health risks. However it is 2014 and if she's not dialated, c-section!It takes two to have children. All selfish answers "her body her decision" no wonder this country's morals and family values are rapidly detetiorating. Teen pregnancy is rampant because of this and women are treating children as paychecks!!!

No, because pregnancy is risking a life and no one should have to risk their life for another. Sperm, material and monetary obligations do not adequately compensate in this case.

Nope, the one who bears the child and the most risk has the final say, It's their life.